23 Jul 2024
The application is refused because the plaintiff failed to show the requested emails are necessary in the interests of justice and failed to demonstrate the documents exist and are likely to be in Google’s possession after seven years; the proposed inquiries would likely generate further questions and would not determinatively resolve the authenticity ('blue‑tick') issue.
20 Nov 2019
Evidence was tenuous and did not permit a reasonable jury properly directed to infer that the defendants caused deletion of data from the deceased's iPhone; allowing the count to go to the jury would invite speculation, therefore under R v Galbraith there is no case to answer on Count 2.
19 Feb 2014
Lorenzo's affidavit (Lorenzo 3) was found to be false, illusory and wilfully defective; his explanations (listed status, privatisation, third party refusal) were implausible or ex post facto and did not excuse non-compliance; documentary evidence supported that the requested documents were within Lorenzo's control; his non-compliance was deliberate and in bad faith; accordingly the court struck out his defence and entered judgment for Miranda, granted the declarations sought regarding repudiation and 50% beneficial ownership, ordered relief as per draft paragraphs and awarded costs on an inde…
31 Jul 2013
Admission requires sufficient proof of authenticity and integrity; the corrupted archive failed to meet the threshold for admissibility.
4 Jul 2011
The conviction could not stand because the judge wrongly relied on uncorroborated hearsay evidence from bank staff about what the applicant said at the meeting without calling the interpreter who mediated those communications; that undermined the essential finding that the applicant knew the documents were false, so the conviction was quashed though laptop documents were admissible they were insufficient alone to establish knowledge at the meeting.